임가공대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
The judgment on the cause of the claim was made from December 2, 2012 to December 2013 by the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant for the processing of the motor vehicle parts of aluminium, such as DM2, etc., and the Defendant supplied the Defendant. The fact that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 11,305,470 out of the rent processing amount that the Plaintiff supplied to the Plaintiff during the said period does not conflict between the parties, or that the fact that the Defendant did not pay KRW 11,305,470 among the rent processing amount that the Plaintiff supplied to the Plaintiff is recognized
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 11,305,470 won of the above processing price and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.
The Defendant’s defense of the defense is a defense that the Defendant paid the above processing costs at the trial. Thus, the Defendant transferred KRW 8,000,000 to the Plaintiff after the first instance trial, as there is no dispute between the parties, the above processing costs obligation was extinguished within the scope of the said obligation, and the Defendant’s defense of the above repayment is justified within the scope of the above recognition.
The offset defense defendant, as the defendant suffered losses equivalent to KRW 30,65,548 for three months due to the plaintiff's sudden relocation of a factory, which was paid by requesting another company due to defective measurements of the automobile parts supplied by the plaintiff, from 11,194,797, and the plaintiff's sudden relocation of a factory, and therefore, it is again argued to the effect that the above damage compensation claim is offset against the plaintiff's contractual processing price claim.
First, it is considered whether damage liability arising from defects in the motor vehicle parts supplied by the plaintiff has occurred.
According to the respective entrys in B 1 through 3, 5, and 7 (including the number of branch offices), and the testimony and the whole purport of oral arguments by the witness B, some of the automobile parts supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was generated, and the Defendant was filed by the Customer in the course of delivering them to the Customer, and the Defendant was the Customer on October 23, 2013.